selectively, it seemed....


On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Winship wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Bill Blinn wrote:
> > Some of us have been using LSoft software for perhaps only five years
> > or so, as I have, and occasionally one of us might not get the
> > terminology exactly right.
>
> Well, when it comes to commands it is not a matter of "terminolgy."
> If you issue the command   HOLD listname   LISTSERV will do exatly
> what you have told it to do, it will HOLD that list, that is, distribution
> of postings to list are to be suspended until the list is FREEed.
> If you issue a LOCK command, or there is an auto-LOCK due to conditions,
> no one can subscribe, unsubscribe, etc., but distribution of postings will
> continue, to those subscribed.
>
> LISTSERV doesn't care how long you've been using L-Soft products: HOLD and
> LOCK are commands with defined meanings, and you had best not confuse them
> as LISTSERV will not cut you any slack if you use HOLD when you mean LOCK,
> and v-v.
> Only five years experience?  Heck, I was telling Eric how to change things
> after one year (and he did, for a couple of major functions which are still
> standard).  Of course, I bothered to read all of the available
> documentation for a year before I became a listowner, but that isn't
> required to know the differenc between HOLD and LOCK.
>
> I also make mistakes when I reply to questions on this list.  When I do
> so I expect to be slapped down, vigorously.
>
> LISTSERV does not forgive, it is not lenient, nor forgiving, and certainly
> not Christianly charitable, it doesn't give the benefit of the doubt, and
> there is no "let's everyone get along together" or whatever, if you issue
> the wrong command.  If you get an auto-note from LISTERV that your list is
> HELD, or that it is LOCKed, well, the note hints right there as to where
> to start looking for the problem, and it doesn't say the list is HELD if
> the list is LOCKed, nor does it say the list is LOCKed if the list is HELD.
>
> There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original question: what does it
> mean when I get a "list held" message, and what should I do about it?
> There definitely was something wrong with replies which suggessted he had
> LOCKed his list.
>
> I have certainly gone off on the wrong tangent in replying to some
> questions, but when I do I take my lumps. I don't moan "well, excuse me for
> living and wasting the bandwidth" nor do I trot out some "let's all be
> nice, now" junk.      Douglas [log in to unmask]
>